http://auth.findreviews.com/the-journey-a-trilogy-of.php Editing resources is available exclusively for KidsKonnect Premium members. To edit this worksheet, click the button below to signup it only takes a minute and you'll be brought right back to this page to start editing! Sign Up. This worksheet can be edited by Premium members using the free Google Slides online software. Click the Edit button above to get started.
This sample is exclusively for KidsKonnect members! To download this worksheet, click the button below to signup for free it only takes a minute and you'll be brought right back to this page to start the download! Matter is the substance of which all material is made. That means objects which have mass. Energy is used in science to describe how much potential a physical system has to change. In physics, energy is a property of matter.
It can be transferred between objects, and converted in form. It cannot be created or destroyed. If you reference any of the content on this page on your own website, please use the code below to cite this page as the original source. These worksheets have been specifically designed for use with any international curriculum.
You can use these worksheets as-is, or edit them using Google Slides to make them more specific to your own student ability levels and curriculum standards. KidsKonnect is a growing library of high-quality, printable worksheets for teachers and homeschoolers. Skip to primary navigation Skip to content Skip to primary sidebar Skip to footer.
Sign Me Up Already a member? Log in to download. Sign Up Already a member? Energy comes flying out when you form bonds. You are breaking bonds in glucose, putting energy in, but then in the formation of carbon dioxide and water, you're losing energy, energy's released.
So the energy of glucose is released when the carbon dioxide and water are formed…. It's just the difference in energy between carbon dioxide and water, and [that between] glucose and oxygen. Reactions are coupled in a molecular way. For example, we often hear in biology that energy is stored in glucose or in ATP. However, breaking a chemical bond always requires energy. When scientists say that energy is stored in a compound, or that a compound is energy rich, it means that the compound can undergo a reaction in which weak bonds break and strong bonds form, releasing energy.
It is always the forming of chemical bonds that releases energy. So it's not something I think necessarily applied to every day life. So, while it is true that there's an equivalence between matter and energy, in a biological context, matter can't become energy. Four of the five chemists that we interviewed also explicitly defined system boundaries, but here, chemical reactions at the molecular scale defined the boundaries.
In response to the rainforest question, chemist 1 explained that in a rainforest, her scale of interest was at the level of chemical reactions within that system box 1 , quotation 2. In summary, all five chemists specifically referred to very large and very small scales and to energy transfer across these scales and frames of reference, and they were careful to define the forms of energy e.
Again, this small sample cannot represent all chemists; rather, these instructors show what it means for instructors to carefully describe and define terms and system boundaries related to energy and matter. When talking about a rainforest, a biologist would not consider energy to be recycled, because after energy is transformed into heat, living systems can no longer use it for metabolic processes.
In contrast, the physicists equated tracing energy with energy recycling. Three of the chemists said that they would not use the term recycled at all when discussing energy or matter box 1 , quotation 4. The term recycled then, seems to imply different meanings for these disciplines, because scientists focus on different aspects of a system. This illustrates how students might be confused by the use of words in biological and physical science classes.
In accordance with the quotations above, we found that all four physics interviewees emphasized the movement of energy into and out of a whole system, whereas the five chemists placed more importance on the movement of energy within the system. In contrast, the biologists tended to focus on processes that facilitate the transfer of energy in living systems. Therefore, students in introductory chemistry, biology, and physics may be asked to account for details of the energy of systems with varying degrees of specificity.
The physicists that we interviewed typically focused on energy movement, with discourse about energy as moving from or toward something box 1 , quotations 5 and 6. Furthermore, all four physicists traced energy entering and leaving a system; the details of energy transformations inside the system were less important. For example, when he was asked how glucose in a grape provides the energy to move your finger, physicist 3 explained that the specific mechanisms were not important to him box 1 , quotation 7. In contrast, all five chemists were primarily interested in mechanisms and in tracking the energy of reactants and products throughout their transformation.
The idea that certain chemical bonds store large amounts of energy, such as phosphate bonds in ATP adenosine triphosphate , has been criticized for nearly 30 years Wood-Robinson but still persists in biology courses. Chemist 1 suggested that discourse and a lack of energy-accounting practices in biology might perpetuate this conception, whereas chemist 3 shared an excerpt from a text illustrating this point box 1 , quotation 9. In our interviews, it was clear that tracing matter within a system was just as important an issue for chemists as tracing energy.
The chemistry faculty members explicitly required students to quantitatively trace atoms and molecules. One interviewee suggested that biologists' tendency to black-box or fail to explain in detail enzymatic reactions of biological processes may well confuse students in regard to tracing matter box 1 , quotation Chemist 2's argument here is that P represents a phosphorus atom in chemistry, not a phosphate group.
In this way, biologists may be confusing students who are learning how to follow atoms through biological mechanisms and across organizational scales. Our last finding from the interviews returns us to Ira Glass's quotation. From a biological perspective, matter and energy are distinct; matter cycles through cells, organisms, and ecosystems, whereas energy may flow through these systems and degrade. From a physicist's perspective, although matter can be created from energy at a small scale e. Students' confusion ultimately results from their lack of understanding of higher-energy physics and the critical importance of scale in this particular case.
How can biology instructors help introductory-level students navigate such differences in the discourse and conception of energy and matter? Several suggestions have been proposed by science educators to promote students' scientific understanding of matter and energy and their application of that understanding.
Energy as an abstract concept is very difficult to teach and learn, which leads to debates about how energy should be taught in early grades through college Millar For instance, Kesidou and Duit recommended teaching the concepts of energy degradation energy becomes less usable and energy conservation together. Our textbook review suggests that energy degradation is emphasized less than energy conservation. Solomon , p.
Certainly, teaching students to routinely account for energy would be valuable. There are also debates about introducing energy qualitatively or quantitatively Duit , Millar Warren argued that energy should be introduced from the start as an abstract mathematical concept, because qualitative treatment makes energy seem like an invisible, intangible substance that can flow from place to place. Others see qualitative treatment as a useful way of simplifying a difficult idea Millar The many studies about students' preconceived ideas about matter have led to a good deal of research on possible interventions.
Visualization —asking students to represent their understanding visually—has been a fruitful area of research. For example, Harrison and Treagust studied students' sketches of atoms, which included models like solar systems, single and multiple orbits, and electron clouds that differed in size by orders of magnitude.
This research led to the recommendation that instructors provide opportunities for students to draw their conceptions. The use of computers to help the students better visualize microscopic phenomena is an exciting area of research in chemistry e. Finally, there is a large amount of literature on conceptual inventories in the physical sciences—research-based sets of questions designed to expose students' alternative conceptions.
For instance, Birk and Kurtz used a two-tier diagnostic test each multiple-choice question required a brief explanation on covalent bonding and structure and showed that even some graduate students found it difficult to relate different types of symbolic representations of molecules such as molecular formulas and shapes to one another, for example.
Validated concept inventories like this are useful tools to help faculty members recognize especially problematic aspects of students' understanding of energy and matter and to assess approaches, such as active teaching, that are designed to improve understanding D'Avanzo In general, we found both similarities and differences regarding contexts and discourse practices among the three disciplines with respect to matter and energy. Instructors in all three disciplines applied the laws of thermodynamics to constrain ideas about what is possible and not possible, but whether the laws of thermodynamics are an explicit part of the course varied among them.
We found that the language or discourse used and the system boundaries discussed were fundamentally different among the disciplines. For example, in chemistry class, a student may implicitly be required to draw boundaries around a molecular reaction, whereas in physics, the boundary might be the entire universe, and in biology, the boundary might be the body of an organism or an ecosystem.
Explicitly understanding the boundaries of a system has a direct influence on how far students choose to trace matter and energy and whether they see matter and energy as being conserved. Differences in discourse and boundary delineations among the disciplines are rarely explained to students. We also found that many of the science textbooks that we surveyed were not organized in a manner that parallels or facilitates the teaching of core concepts for biological literacy, which includes an understanding of the pathways and transformations of matter and energy.
Indeed, although textbooks are valuable collections of fundamental knowledge within a domain, they usually do not illuminate the interrelationships between biology, chemistry, and physics. The simple and concise nature of textbook definitions of matter and energy, for example, support rote memorization but do little to facilitate a systems approach to thinking about solutions to scientific problems. Our findings lead to several critical lessons and opportunities for biology instructors. First, we must recognize that students walk into our classrooms with a wide range of alternative ideas about energy and matter that we might not anticipate.
Biology faculty members can promote student learning by being precise about our language as we explain concepts that involve matter or energy. In doing so, we need to be aware that language that is lexically ambiguous carries multiple and often conflicting meanings for our students. Such language, instead of clarifying difficult concepts, may cause further confusion. Teachers may also explain to students how biologists account for and describe energy and matter in contrast to how physicists and chemists do so. As a final suggestion, instructors often use analogies and metaphors as tools to explain complex or abstract concepts, with the intention of helping students gain understanding by mapping difficult ideas to a familiar analog Duit However, this approach can lead to misrepresentations and misunderstandings.
For example, Venville and Treagust explained how biological analogies can be a double-edged sword: beneficial in some cases or leading to students' alternate conceptions in other cases. Research shows that students do not transfer prior knowledge across disciplines or even across scales within the same discipline e. Because the scale at which we reason guides our discourse i.
A student taking courses in the three disciplines could be studying energy, for example, at scales ranging from the subatomic to the universe and everything in between. Therefore, we believe that increasing instructor awareness of the differences in how biologists, chemists, and physicists reason about matter and energy can help students leverage and integrate prior knowledge, which would lead to greater understanding. Our own scientific conceptions of the natural world are often obvious to us: We understand where the system boundaries lie, we can identify the components that make up the system, we understand how those components interact, and we can reason across scales of time and space Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion In short, biologists are expert systems thinkers.
At times, we may forget that students are just beginning to think and reason about systems. Systems thinking is far from trivial to learn and to teach Hmelo-Silver and Azevedo , but current calls to reform introductory biology explicitly include systems thinking as a core concept for biological literacy AAAS , and therefore, we should teach our students to think about energy and matter from a systems perspective.
Ultimately, we ask ourselves what the correct approach to teaching matter and energy is in an introductory biology course. In response, we encourage biology instructors to communicate with instructors in physics and chemistry who teach introductory courses, so that common contexts can be identified and shared with students.
Although we recognize that integrated curricula are not feasible at every university, simply discussing our courses and identifying common contexts could support a more integrated understanding of matter and energy for our students. We thank the anonymous faculty members who agreed to be interviewed for this research. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
It is not the same thing as the particle itself. I am not a physicist at all. The lung tissue is just expressing or taking on the function that it needs to do. Otherwise, how could stem cells be used for various items. I feel the same way about matter and energy. Then what exactly are you? I am by NO way a scientist, but these concepts have been driving me insane for years. I would be interested to study these concepts further.
Thank you. Can we say that the building stuff of the cosmos are mere 2 types of vibrations — organized ripples and psuedo ripples — which we call real or virtual particles? The basic stuff is fields. Now you want to ask what fields can do and how that contributes to the stuff we see around us. Is field stuff though? Field is more of an information matrix.
I think we need to learn how to distinguish fields from mass-energy, and mass-energy from its carrier particles for this discussion to have any merit. And why are we so intent on reducing everything to one thing anyway? What good does it even do? Even the scientific world sometimes…. First, 2 is false. For a more general system of particles and fields, you also have to account for other contributions to the total energy that cannot be assigned to any one particle.
Second, 1 is false. Energy is something that stuff can have. Mass is also something that stuff can have. But not necessarily. Some stuff has no mass — photons, for instance. And it is an accident that electrons are massive; remember that the Higgs field being non-zero on average is responsible for this. Electrons would still be stuff even if the Higgs field were zero on average and electrons were massless. But the substance of the remark is true.
Part of the point of this article and my earlier particle-antiparticle annihilation and mass-and-energy articles is that photons and electrons are both particles. They are both stuff. It happens that photons are massless and electrons are massive, so they behave quite differently.
But the equations that govern them are very similar, and one should not think of electrons as stuff and photons as something else. Mass is something they may or may not have; energy is something they have too. As you point out energy is intrinsic to the stuff aka it allready poses it.
Matter is a subset of stuff, though which subset depends on context. A silly but useful working definition is that something is stuff if it can be used to damage other stuff. I have to make a beam of photons or a beam of electrons or muons or protons or neutrinos. You can make two black holes, made entirely from space-time curvature, and arrange for them to orbit each other.
A sufficiently powerful beam of photons, or electrons, could break that system of two black holes apart. In the first example you would be using something which is obviously stuff to damage an object made entirely from curvature of space and time. In the second you would be using space-time to damage an object made from other stuff. Haha, that is true! That would really have been the worst possible name.
I am an IT pro and we have trouble with overloaded terminology just within our field. As with particle physics, our objects keep splitting into pieces, too. The only thing to do is have fun with it! What are your thoughts about the popular vision of an object made of matter meeting an object made of antimatter? The laws of nature are sufficiently symmetric not exactly, but very close that anything you can do with matter you could do with anti-matter. But no one has any practical reason to try to construct large amounts of anti-matter.
But the amounts of energy that you could obtain by slamming those beams into a wall is small. The wall does heat up, but mostly because the anti-electrons or anti-protons are traveling really fast and have lots of motion-energy — not because of the energy released when they find an electron or proton and annihilate to something else photons or pions, for instance. And as far as we can tell, the part of the universe that we can see does not naturally have large amounts of anti-matter anywhere. Thanks, Professor. Two things about our hypothetical antimatter 1, that I hope might surprise me.
Are there subtle effects, like the exclusion principle, that changes the way antielectron shells would behave near electron shells? It was as if the nature of the reaction was to defuse itself, contrary to popular imagination. So when the first few leptons meet their anti-partners, and throw off some lightweight particles, what happens next? Their atoms become ions and their molecules would break apart, for one, if they have time. But how do we expect the nucleii to come in contact? Would we get more of a chemical than a nuclear reaction? There is no question if you took two cubes, one of matter and one of antimatter, and brought them safely together, the actual contact would be instantly different from the contact between matter and matter.
At the surfaces of contact, the electrons on the outskirts of the atoms and the positrons anti-electrons on the outskirts of the anti-atoms would start finding each other on very short microscopic time scales, and immediately begin turning into pairs of photons of , electron-volts of energy each. Since it only takes a few electron-volts of energy to rip the electrons off an atom or positrons off an anti-atom , all the atoms and the anti-atoms near the surface would be quickly disrupted, vaporizing the material in that region. The force from the released energetic particles smashing into the remaining atoms of the cubes would most definitely push the cubes apart, just as in the fission experiments you mentioned.
I am sure that someday soon people will make many millions of anti-atoms. One just has to remember that a glass of water has something like a million million million million atoms of hydrogen. Now you reduced everything to a word ; stuff , which can have mass , energy , can do work ……but what is stuff , you said what it can do but if we want to go deeper is it the end of our search? If the Higgs is the caveat of the phrase then, in my mind, not founding the corresponding particle indicates that such a field does not exist.
As a complementary note on the anti-matter in the large scale, there are experiments on producing some dozen anti-hydrogen atoms also. Of course nothing macroscopical. A field that strongly interacts with itself, or with other fields, may have no particle states at all. This is a well known fact about conformal field theory.
There are many concrete examples in the context of solid state physics, and many hypothetical examples that arise in high-energy physics. Said another way: a non-interacting field always has well-behaved ripples which in quantum mechanics are made from quanta , a weakly-interacting field has largely well-behaved ripples though these may have a finite lifetime , but a strong-interacting field may have nothing resembling a ripple at all.
So no, what I said is not misleading — it is the particle picture of fields, which assumes that fields are weakly interacting, that is misleading. And you used that weakly-interacting-field intuition in your comment. My comment was really made with non-interacting fields in mind, so I see what I got wrong. Just to make clear what I meant was that for non-interacting fields the concept of particle is observer-dependent because of things like Unruh Effect.
Thank you for the explanation. The ripples. Matter, particles, objects, squiggles, these are all just names that we use. Nature does not care about our neat little ordering systems and so sometimes things can get a bit confusing. Great stuff, Matt. A parenthetical question: This is a whole new way of thinking for me, having spent my career in applied physics before In my struggle to adapt to your post-classical, if not post-modern, way of thinking, I am trying to understand where and how the Higgs mechanism appears in the mathematical constructs that underlie the standard model what are those mathematical constructs?
If I wanted to find an answer to those two question on Google, what should I google? Do you understand superconductivity? The photon obtains a mass inside a superconductor when Cooper pairs represented by a charge-2e scalar field condense. The W and Z particles obtain a mass within the universe when the Higgs field condenses.
The mathematics is almost the same — relativistic instead of non-relativistic, non-Abelian instead of Abelian, but it is the same idea. Did you read what I wrote on Standard Model Higgs decays? Do you have a spam problem on this blog; I also am a blogger, and I was curious about your situation; we have developed some nice methods and we are looking to swap solutions with others, be sure to shoot me an e-mail if interested. Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate!
He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this write-up to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read. Thank you for sharing! A Kehri power inverter can be obtained at the Talon outpost next to a pile of boxes. Lord of the Rings: War in the Northis one of those sad cases of wasted potential that you can enjoy for a time. Whatever benefit that opportunity brings depends solely on the person experiencing it and whether they are open to it. In the beginning of time and space there was finite temperature within the absolute maximum of Fermi spheres, the singularity that created the Big Bang.
The expansion of this sphere created time and space and hence a field presumably the gravitational field. With further expansion and lowering of temperature energy densities resonances where created and hence more fields, like EMF and Higgs. Now, if energy is a conserved quantity then the sum of all fields must also be constant. So with the continued expansion of time and space spacetime the magnitudes of the various ripples as created by the various fields should be reducing.
I say should because the densities continue to lower both absolutely larger expanse of the entire universe and locally around the smaller gravity wells. At very high temperatures the Higgs field would have been zero on average. But the Higgs field is believed to have changed very rapidly and then settled down to its present non-zero value during that transition. In principle they might have varied over space and time, but there is neither experimental evidence nor good theoretical reason to think they actually did, at least within the part of the universe that we can see and over the time since the electroweak phase transition.
For instance, the success of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis in predicting the original helium to hydrogen ratio of the universe could easily have been messed up had the electron or proton or neutron masses been significantly different from what they are today. Scientists continue to try experimentally and observationally to test whether there is any sign of variation. Hi I was woundering if energy is conserved in general relativity. Also woundering where the energy of the cmb has gone.
Let me say two things. Maybe a general relativity expert here knows a better intuitive and also correct response. As lup mentioned this equation is somewhat confusing. It can be interpreted as the energy is spent to apply pressure to the boundary and expand the volume. But that interpretation implies there is an external environment outside our universe. Are we living in a bubble within a bigger bubble, in a asymmetric phase within a symmetric environment. Are there other asymmetric bubbles nearby?
The thing that amazes me Professor is regardless of which theory you believe non explain the real nature of energy. Why was the temperature so high at the Big Bang? So energy is conserved when cmb photons have thier wavelength stretched by the expanding universe? The problem is that exapanding universes are not the same at every time, so that energy is not conserved.
With that in mind the cmb energy has not gone anywhere but just disappeared. I also did not want to imply that dark energy be the dominant energy of the universe — it only has to be stronger than the universal gravitational force and supposedly wins the upper hand the further the mass particles are apart.
But on the same note, if the universe continues to expand eventually the photons of the background radiation will be stretched beyond the temperature of absolute zero — do they then cease to exist? Thanks heaps…thats certainly answered my question. The only remaining puzzle for me is that i thought that energy conservation was a consequence of a symmetry.. What survives of our usual notion is that within sufficiently small and weakly-curved regions of space and time, the laws of nature do behave in a time- and space-independent way, to a sufficiently good approximation that energy and momentum are conserved there.
There is still a Noether theorem and still a conservation law, but it applies locally, not globally across all of space and all of time except in special circumstances, such as a time-independent space-time. Technically: there are energy- and momentum-currents that are locally conserved. Thanks Matt, thats cleared up a lot of things. Cesar mentioned that the cmb photon energy is really just going away ceasing to exist as the universe expands.
Can we have the opposite — can we have energy appear that wasnt there before? In order to have the opposite effect all we need is a contracting universe, like those cyclic universe models. To be very clear, in those cases there is so much mass in the whole universe that at some point is stops expanding and starts collapsing.
But remmember that this is just a model, the current astrophysical data supports the accelerated expanding universe which kind of eliminates the recollapsing universes in such a naive way. Hmm is anyone else having problems with the pictures on this blog loading? Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated. An experiment consisting of a holometer is currently in the design stages at the Fermilab centre.
Headed by Dr Craig Hogan, the aim is to determine if spacetime has holographic properties by attempting to measure a quantifiable planck unit. I know that a holographic field is a constructive interference pattern with information encoded in the boundary of the pattern. I also know that I am voyaging into the realms of speculation by suggesting this, but could the fermions be nodal points of a standing wave?
Certainly, the fact that they are non-locally connected seems consistent with this. If they are, then could this also mean that mass is a measurement of the negative interferometric-visibility density of a Higgs scalar field instead of a particle? Could it also imply that the laws of physics are an hierarchical layer of anti-nodal displacement cycles, generated by an underlying constructive interference pattern state, with the gauge bosons being the anti-nodes themselves?
One operates on the weak nuclear force at the energy scale of GeV or so; the other relates to space-time viewed at the energy scale of 10,,,,, GeV or so. We have very successful quantum field theory for fermion fields and gauge boson fields, working in some cases to one part in a trillion; so you have to tell me how you could reformulate all of what we know about quantum fields to make the fermions come out as nodes in some kind of standing wave and interacting properly with gauge bosons that come out as anti-nodes in some kind of standing wave.
Sounds like an extremely tall mathematical order and I have no idea whatsoever how you would start to make that work. Einstein is widely quoted in our culture. In all your posts you mentioned fields so many times , you never explained what is it , the max. Are we to stop at a word ; field? Are fields an ontological reality of a mathematical representation of our observations? Forgive my insistence but i cannot stop at mid road. In specific attempts to go beyond this way of thinking, fields can be manifestations of other things.
For example, in theories with extra dimensions, some but not all fields can be manifestations of the shapes and sizes of dimensions that are too small for us to see. In other attempts, some of the known fields can be themselves made out of other fields which are more fundamental. So I would say that the fields are currently viewed as the fundamental ingredients; that is where things currently stop. Even space and time are to be understood in terms of gravitational fields.
However, knowledge accumulates over time, and what we think is fundamental may change. There can also be multiple equivalent interpretations of the same information — two ways of looking at a problem that have exactly the same mathematics and the same physical predictions. Philosophers are frustrated by this ambiguity, but theoretical physicists have learned that we have to remain light on our feet. In other words, they are defined by the topography of spacetime.
I speculate this way because as fundamentals they must all be derived back to the initial field, whether it is gravitation or something more fundamental like vortices created by the rotations of the three dimensional space. This is why in my early post I speculated that the sum of all fields must be constant, because spacetime has an orderly progression.
So my logic is there must be a constant constraint that drives order otherwise we would have global chaos. Quantum numbers are very specific things: they are labels of certain quantum states; in particular, they are eigenvalues of overall quantum operators that are meaningful in specific quantum states. Quantum fields are a more general concept. For example, the electric charge of an electron is a quantum number; but there is no field for that. The electromagnetic field from freshman year physics is the best place to start really understanding classical fields.
Quantum fields are like classical fields in that they can support waves; they are unlike them in that the waves cannot come with arbitrary amplitude, but instead must have an amplitude equal to a minimal value one quantum times any integer. I know that Dirac and Feynman were concern with renormalization because it would contaminate the math in to most of fundamental ways and get us trapped in a our own math. Is renormalization prevent us to involve naturally into more advance physics? This is just not sensible mathematics.
Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small — not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it! Another important critic was Feynman. Despite his crucial role in the development of quantum electrodynamics, he wrote the following in But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process!
Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. I am inclined to agree with Dirac and Feynman in that we need a better handling of the infinities and constraints to make real progress. I am afraid our ability to experiment is getting very quickly to a stagnation point because of the limits of our machines.
I also want to take this opportunity to stress how important it is to convince NASA and their handlers that more resources should be spent in sensors, telescopes, and space experiments than the very expensive human spaceflight projects. If you think renormalization is about infinities or that it has to do with an inability to visualize the physics , you have not understood it. Unfortunately most textbooks still talk about it in terms of removing infinities.
This is deeply unfortunate and misleading, because in fact, even in theories with no infinities, there is renormalization. Even in quantum mechanics, in the anharmonic oscillator, there is a perfectly finite renormalization. Once you have understood that, then you can understand that renormalization both perturbative and non-perturbative has nothing to do with the infinities themselves, but with something more physical and deeper; and you can also see which types of infinities are acceptable in quantum field theory and what types are not.
Dirac clearly never grasped this point. As for Feynman, I am sorry I never got to ask him exactly what he meant by his comment. Unfortunately this is an extremely subtle and technical subject which is why almost nobody does it in a sensible way and I doubt I will be able to explain it on this website. At some point I may write a short technical monograph about it.
Strassler s above comment ending with. If someday you have the time and inclination to tackle an article about this issue, I think many of your readers would appreciate it, and I would be interested to see what approach you take. I read in an article about quantum gravity in stanford encyclopedia of philosophy that fields are specific properties of space-time itself , is this correct?
But my dear friend , physics is an ontological science , it is interconnected to philosophy, any thing you say about fundamental level of existence IS philosophy. But physics is a quantitative, predictive enterprise. Theoretical physicists will often accept levels of understanding or ambiguity that are unacceptable to philosophers. And to mathematicians! Collectively, we are typically much more practically minded than our colleagues in either of these subjects. This allows us to make rapid, but often very ragged, progress.
For instance: what people said about particles and fields in the s, before quantum field theory was understood at the much deeper level that is available to us today, was in many cases deeply misleading philosophically. The story I tell you today is based on insights that emerged in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Indeed, a good chunk of what I learned in grad school was misleading philosophically. If we choose the wrong number of DoFs or formalism, we find the accuracy is OK, but not great, but the inaccuracy gives us precious little clue as to what different DoFs or formalism to use.
Hence the enormous disparity of models that are published in journals. I think no time is wasted once they are on the grand march to understand existence , no one will put his hand on the ultimate truth , but science and philosophy are 2 faces of same coin……the sacred search for what IS and our place in it , it is the most precious effort humans can perform, even a simple layperson question can lead to some great answer it is our duty and our destiny as humans to think ,to reflect , and to wonder ……nothing is greater than our feeling of awe in front of beauty , design , perfection in a realm which is not perfect itself ….
I went back in time and forward in space…today became yesterday and zero was squared…BANG!!! This brings in a little quantum mechanics, which you might not be ready to do yet. Those take up some space. That takes up space. In our world, hydrogen is a boson, deuterium heavy hydrogen, whose nucleus contains a neutron as well as a proton is a fermion. Is one of them matter and the other not?
In certain hypothetical universes, you could make a proton-like fermion out of combining a fermion and a boson. And you can make bosons out of combining fermions. But you can imagine a world in which some quarks were fermions and others were bosons, and the number of types of gluons was different — and then you could get fermionic proton-like objects which were made from quark fermions and quark bosons as well as gluons. What would you call the quark bosons?
Matter or not?
The theory of supersymmetry causes a problem, because it combines fermions and bosons in pairs. Which is valid, matter is standing spherical waves oscillating at the Compton wavelength or is matter a Fermi sphere with such a radius so as to give a Fermi energy equivalent to the mass-energy of that particular particle? I can understand Pauli exclusion principle via the Fermi sphere definition but not with the standing wave theory. Are we missing some math? These hadrons would take up some space too, individually.
But I suspect there are bosonic systems where I could do make a lattice, if I could arrange for some short-distance repulsion from a short-range force. This approximation seems so critical in defining the true natural of the vacuum, how has it been verified and conversely how do you rule out dimensions above the usual 3 that we perceive to live in? An electron can have definite momentum including zero as long it is in a state where all position information is lost.
So it can be at rest, yes. One way is to bring an anti-electron close by, watch the two annihilate into two photons, and measure the energies of the photons which are pure motion-energy, since the photon has no mass. Incredible what a interesting subject physics really is, how much there is to say about it and what thorough knowledge you have of every detail of physics!
It reminds me of Feynman. Thanks to these book I understand physics at a much more fundamental level than when I was a student, when they talked about gauge invariance, fields, particles, representations, CPT and renormalizability and I had no idea how they were all linked together. To call matter particles fermions is a good thing because of the stability they give to matter due to the Fermi exclusion principle.
Usually we see the bosons as force particles and usually this is not too bad a picture. But what about light-light scattering. Here in the box diagram the fermions are the force particles. In fact, your remark suggests another problem. Indeed, pairs of virtual fermions more precisely, appropriate quantum disturbances in a fermion field can cause forces. In fact, the force which holds a nucleus together is, from some points of view, due to pions — which are bosons, but are made from fermions quarks and anti-quarks. So now we have a force particle made from matter particles.
Which means our naming scheme is a mess. You see that this distinction just causes problems. At some point I think you have to take the physical phenomena for what they are and not spend too much time worrying about finding the perfect naming scheme for them. I say, for the lack of a better theory, God caused the universe to ignite and hence the Big Bang. The boundary of our math only goes to the time-energy uncertainty principle was given in by L.
Mandelshtam and I. Tamm, as follows. In other words, this is the time after which the expectation value changes appreciably. One thing has always puzzled me about dark energy. I guess my real question is, what does that decomposition mean?
One of the great properties i like much in what Matt. Now the main essential difference is : Matt. I think you are more or less stating my point of view, yes. I just know that we have found ways of classifying the objects in the world such that we can predict in great detail how they behave. Along these lines I think it is also important to keep in mind that we, as minds, never come in contact with anything physical at all.
See the table across the room?
"The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics. branch of science that deals with matter, energy and their relation to each other. and related types of radiation. Matter. has mass and occupies space. Energy.
What do you know about this table? The only thing you know is the image created somehow in your brain, formed on the basis of electrical impulses down your optic nerve from your eye, which in turn are based on photons impinging on your eye, some of which came down from the sun or from the light bulb in the room, and bounced off the table in just the right direction to enter your retina. There are many steps from your image of the table to the table itself.
Even when you touch the table, what you feel is in your brain, created from nerve impulses sent down from your fingers, from nerves firing in response to the deformation of your skin by the inter-atomic forces between your skin and the table. Your brain is not in contact with the table. What you feel is in your brain, not in your fingers. Our senses are no different from the measuring equipment used by scientists, allowing us the ability to detect aspects of the world around us. What we know of the world, through our natural sense organs and through the artificial sense organs of scientific experiments, is always indirect.
Your statement is, I think, a little too strong — we do know that there are electrical phenomena occurring in the brain that are related in some way to the things we see and think, and we know that damage to areas of the brain strokes, direct injury, disease result in correlated damage to conscious experience.
But how they are related, we do not know. In any case, all I really wanted to say is that conscious experience does not in any sense involve a direct encounter with the physical objects of which we are conscious. The reason we take the right-hand side seriously is that it goes along with mathematical equations which predict, correctly, the results of millions of experiments.
For example, fermions satisfy a Pauli Exclusion Principle. Are you suggesting synapse chemicals satisfy a similar principle? Do Neurons form condensates the way bosons do? Atoms can be bosons or fermions; are you suggesting that synapse firings can be neurons or synapse chemicals? I insist on precise statements. I can understand Pauli Exclusion Principle via the Fermi sphere definition but not with the standing wave theory. Atoms involve a nucleus surrounded by electrons which are standing spherical waves or more complicated standing waves.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle simply says that no two electrons can be in the same standing wave if their spins have the same orientation. Metals involve matter in which the electrons in a given volume form a Fermi sphere. NOTE: this is not a sphere in physical space. The vacuum does not have an associated Fermi sphere. The mass-energies of particles in empty space are not associated with a Fermi energy. Ok, thank you for clarifying. What does he mean when he describes it, antiparticle, as a hole? Is not opposite phase the same thing?
The different fermions are basically standing waves of different amplitudes and frequencies? Why are the half lives different? How does that work, superposition? Is there any association between this radius and quantum entanglement? You have to first work out, for a particular physical system, what its one-electron states are; then the exclusion principle says that nature cannot put two electrons in the same state.
This is not something that I know how to visualize, because it involves a quantum mechanical effect for which there is no visualizable analogue. Not all facts about quantum theory can be represented by a picture in the mind; this is part of what makes it hard. PS; I apologies for my hieroglyphics but my brain works better with images.
What about two loose electrons, can they superimpose or is it that the probability of two electron waves coming close to each other is nil? Does the exclusion principle have any thing to do about the Z and W having mass or is it solely because of the variants of the spin states of these bosons? But, again, why do different fermions have different half lives? In other other words why is the electron so stable of the other fermions decay so quickly?
One physical object we do experience more directly is our own brain — or at least parts of it. I wonder. Take a look at this very cool stuff:.
Finally, there is a large amount of literature on conceptual inventories in the physical sciences—research-based sets of questions designed to expose students' alternative conceptions. Textbook definitions and index-term usage of matter and energy. April Maskiewicz. Wikipedia Outlines. In introductory biology courses, living systems are examined across a range of scales—subatomic, atomic, molecular, subcellular, cellular, organismal, ecosystem, and global—and related topics may well be presented at different points in the course. What is 5 things you can learn about science? Electron transport chain, respiration, movement, temperature regulation, decomposition and decay, atmospheric warming.
Back on the subject of photons losing energy in cosmic expansion. Let us have a mental experiment , a static closed universe where only one electron at rest reside : What is the physical meaning then of its m? Most people are making a major category mistake w. What is missed by most people is the fundamental category chasm between chemoelectrical output and sensations or feelings …….
I was obliged to write this to clarify some mistaken comments written above. If I may concur with this in a simple way: one must distinguish between systems that appear to be conscious and systems that actually are conscious. I believe the rest of you experience consciousness because you are similar to me, and I know I experience it. That fundamental problem — the lack of an experimental test of the experience itself — will make it difficult to determine whether a machine which behaves as though conscious actually is conscious.
And a question for which there is no experimental test, even in principle, lies outside the reach of science… so until someone invents a convincing test that establishes whether a particular creature, natural or artificial, experiences its apparent consciousness, I cannot easily be convinced that the issue is ever going to be understood scientifically. The thing that we are most familiar with is also the most difficult and puzzling of all known phenomena.
Neurons and neuron networks can be reduced to the realm of forces and particles while sensations and feelings can never be reduced to any thing within material universe , as such all talks about machine consciousness are complete void ………beware of A.